RE: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
The purpose of a “hood” in this application is to direct and capture grease 
laden stuff…

Re: NFPA 96.

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108

[cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:15 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jonathan Mote 
Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

Those hoods meet the definition of a draft curtain, added in 2013 edition, I 
would think they could be considered independently of the regular system.

Jonathan Mote, WBSL NICET II

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Bruce Verhei' 
mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>
Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of the 
water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  We’ve seen 
these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for domestic because I 
don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the hood supplier will say 
it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they won’t do anything to prove 
it will work.  They throw that all back to the sprinkler guys.  Just been one 
of those days.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:28 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>
Subject: Re: Captive Aire Systems

I might be a couple years out of date. I think the ones we saw were off 
domestic water, with a small backflow device. You can’t run a restaurant 
without water, so there is no concern about water system not being monitored.
Best.

On Aug 14, 2019, at 15:19, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via 
Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
I’m sure some of you have dealt with these Captive Aire / Piranha systems.  
Basically they are hood systems that connect to the sprinkler system.  The one 
I have a data sheet for has an operating pressure of 32-70 psi and flows vary 
depending on # of nozzles.  How do those of you dealing with these handle them? 
 The supplier will not do any calculations for the system.  My question is, do 
we treat these like a “rack” system and balance the hood systems to the 
overhead?  If I have a kitchen with 3 of these, do I figure 0, 1, 2 or 3 
flowing simultaneously with the overhead.  As you can imagine, a standard 
sprinkler in the kitchen is ±10 psi.  Now, if we have to treat this like a rack 
system and balance at the junction point, this 30 psi for the Piranha system 
will significantly over-discharge the sprinklers leading to a much larger 
kitchen demand.  These often seem to be brought up toward the end of the 
project leaving everyone scrambling.

What has the collective group been doing with these things?


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 

RE: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
Those hoods meet the definition of a draft curtain, added in 2013 edition, I 
would think they could be considered independently of the regular system.

Jonathan Mote, WBSL NICET II

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Bruce Verhei' 

Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of the 
water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  We’ve seen 
these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for domestic because I 
don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the hood supplier will say 
it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they won’t do anything to prove 
it will work.  They throw that all back to the sprinkler guys.  Just been one 
of those days.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:28 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>
Subject: Re: Captive Aire Systems

I might be a couple years out of date. I think the ones we saw were off 
domestic water, with a small backflow device. You can’t run a restaurant 
without water, so there is no concern about water system not being monitored.
Best.

On Aug 14, 2019, at 15:19, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via 
Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
I’m sure some of you have dealt with these Captive Aire / Piranha systems.  
Basically they are hood systems that connect to the sprinkler system.  The one 
I have a data sheet for has an operating pressure of 32-70 psi and flows vary 
depending on # of nozzles.  How do those of you dealing with these handle them? 
 The supplier will not do any calculations for the system.  My question is, do 
we treat these like a “rack” system and balance the hood systems to the 
overhead?  If I have a kitchen with 3 of these, do I figure 0, 1, 2 or 3 
flowing simultaneously with the overhead.  As you can imagine, a standard 
sprinkler in the kitchen is ±10 psi.  Now, if we have to treat this like a rack 
system and balance at the junction point, this 30 psi for the Piranha system 
will significantly over-discharge the sprinklers leading to a much larger 
kitchen demand.  These often seem to be brought up toward the end of the 
project leaving everyone scrambling.

What has the collective group been doing with these things?


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list

RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
David,

Interesting question. You haven't provided enough information for a thorough 
answer.

How big of an attic area?

So you intend to mark the location of every upright sprinkler in the concealed 
space on the ceiling below? No one will ever paint that gypsum?

Then cut access for NFPA 25 5-year internal pipe inspection?

And cut access for NFPA 25 20-year sprinkler inspection?

Life expectancy of a design/build NFPA 13 dry sprinkler system, riser mounted 
air compressor, schedule 10, black steel pipe = 7-15 years.  Is that the system 
you are specifying?

Or, are you specifying with nitrogen and schedule 40 pipe?  Other?

Why not fill with insulation? As long as you avoid mold issues (see webinar) 
that could be a better long-term option for your current client and whoever 
buys it next.

NFPA 25 requires limited access for internal inspection, but if anything goes 
wrong (e.g. corrosion) how do you work on it without taking significant pieces 
of the ceiling down.

Can you imagine how hard it is to locate pipe and problems in that space (i.e. 
Confined space) without accurate as-built drawings (I'm lucky if the owner has 
any drawings, but as-built for those spaces aren't the norm). We've taken off 
the roof of structures less than two years old to locate pipe and abandoned dry 
systems in attics because it is too expensive to take the ceilings down just to 
start locating the leaks and facilitate repairs.

Too many questions for a simple answer.

It'll be great to hear other responses.

Scott

Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams 
Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic that 
tapers from 2' to 4 ' without being filled to within 2 inches of the deck with 
insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard heads as the 
design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special application 
attic sprinklers.

The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is it 
prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the gypsum 
mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.

TIA

David T Williams, PE - Lead MEP/FP Engineer
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
LHBcorp.com

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Language camp facility. Rural area. Installing a underground water storage tank 
with vertical turbine pump. Originally we were to provide partial sprinkling of 
just the dining hall not sure if that meant the attic above it or not. The Fire 
Marshal and others convinced them to provide complete sprinkler of two 
buildings (and more as the campus get built out.) the demand is driven by the 
kitchen in the dining hall. (BTW the fire marshal wants us to use one of those 
weird MN domestic water pump as a supply for the fire protection system.. 
Yuck.. no local driller can drill the required 10 inch well and the risk of not 
having enough water at the yearly test drove us to the tank)

The dining hall has a convoluted 4500 SF attic with some standard attic that is 
accessible, but that has a 6 foot wide flat roof section with skylights running 
down the middle.

Of that a 1000 SF area that has been created with scissor trusses and the 
skylights and flat area over a dining area.

There is a inaccessible dropped wood ceiling below the attic structure where we 
will run the wet system protecting the dining room. The gypsum above this could 
be marked for access points.

And yes, cut holes if needed for the inspection.

Writing the spec now, I have been using nitrogen for the last few system 
designs, I wasn't sure I should for this one due to cost as there is an 
adjoining building with a "normal" dry system for the attic and the 8 foot wide 
combustible eaves. Is a small nitrogen generator cost effective?

The problem with the insulation is the almost 48 inch depth required at the 
"thick" part of the scissor truss. This architect doesn't want to do it that 
way, although our housing group regularly designs flat truss roofs with near 30 
inch thick insulation due to past experience with burst/leaking sprinklers.

What about Ron's contention that no access should be provided.

I think you have convinced me to at least specify nitrogen and schedule 40 over 
the limited access area, with a prohibition on groove joint in those areas.

David T Williams - Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Scott Futrell 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams 
Subject: RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

David,

Interesting question. You haven't provided enough information for a thorough 
answer.

How big of an attic area?

So you intend to mark the location of every upright sprinkler in the concealed 
space on the ceiling below? No one will ever paint that gypsum?

Then cut access for NFPA 25 5-year internal pipe inspection?

And cut access for NFPA 25 20-year sprinkler inspection?

Life expectancy of a design/build NFPA 13 dry sprinkler system, riser mounted 
air compressor, schedule 10, black steel pipe = 7-15 years.  Is that the system 
you are specifying?

Or, are you specifying with nitrogen and schedule 40 pipe?  Other?

Why not fill with insulation? As long as you avoid mold issues (see webinar) 
that could be a better long-term option for your current client and whoever 
buys it next.

NFPA 25 requires limited access for internal inspection, but if anything goes 
wrong (e.g. corrosion) how do you work on it without taking significant pieces 
of the ceiling down.

Can you imagine how hard it is to locate pipe and problems in that space (i.e. 
Confined space) without accurate as-built drawings (I'm lucky if the owner has 
any drawings, but as-built for those spaces aren't the norm). We've taken off 
the roof of structures less than two years old to locate pipe and abandoned dry 
systems in attics because it is too expensive to take the ceilings down just to 
start locating the leaks and facilitate repairs.

Too many questions for a simple answer.

It'll be great to hear other responses.

Scott

Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams 
mailto:david.willi...@lhbcorp.com>>
Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic that 
tapers from 2' to 4 ' without being filled to within 2 inches of the deck with 
insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard heads as the 
design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special application 
attic sprinklers.

The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is it 
prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the gypsum 
mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.

TIA

David T Williams, PE - Lead MEP/FP Engineer
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Nicky Marshall via Sprinklerforum
In New Zealand, we frequently connect them to a sprinkler system as the 
installation of an approved ‘restaurant system’ permits sprinklers to be 
omitted from ducts and hoods in our standard.
We do not allow a cumulative demand.  Although our standard does not explicitly 
state what you should do.
When connected to a sprinkler system they are treated much like a ‘tail-end’ 
pre-action or dry system.  Because sprinkler system compliance is dependent on 
that system, they are connected with a supervised/monitored valve to warn if 
closed and they also usually have a flow or operation switch on them that 
indicates on a fire alarm panel.
Our suppliers also do the calculations.


[cid:image002.jpg@01D55427.AE70BF60]Nicky Marshall
Southern Regional Manager
PROTECH DESIGN LIMITED
Specialist Fire Protection Consultants
Phone: +64 (0)3 579 5577 extn 1  Mobile: +64 (0)21 433 488  Email: 
ni...@protechdesign.co.nz  Web 
:www.protechdesign.co.nz
Address:105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, NZ Skype for Business: 
ni...@protechdesign.co.nz
[A close up of a signDescription automatically generated]
“I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I 
realised I was somebody” Lily Tomlin


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Bruce Verhei' 
mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>
Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of the 
water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  We’ve seen 
these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for domestic because I 
don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the hood supplier will say 
it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they won’t do anything to prove 
it will work.  They throw that all back to the sprinkler guys.  Just been one 
of those days.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:28 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>
Subject: Re: Captive Aire Systems

I might be a couple years out of date. I think the ones we saw were off 
domestic water, with a small backflow device. You can’t run a restaurant 
without water, so there is no concern about water system not being monitored.
Best.

On Aug 14, 2019, at 15:19, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via 
Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
I’m sure some of you have dealt with these Captive Aire / Piranha systems.  
Basically they are hood systems that connect to 

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum
Further to Nicky’s comments I would add that the systems installed as tail end 
to fire sprinklers do not have the hood washing feature that the Captive Air 
appear to have. 

Pressure reducing is needed in some cases.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch; New Zealand 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Nicky Marshall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, 16 August 2019 11:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Nicky Marshall; Travis Mack
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

 

In New Zealand, we frequently connect them to a sprinkler system as the 
installation of an approved ‘restaurant system’ permits sprinklers to be 
omitted from ducts and hoods in our standard.

We do not allow a cumulative demand.  Although our standard does not explicitly 
state what you should do.

When connected to a sprinkler system they are treated much like a ‘tail-end’ 
pre-action or dry system.  Because sprinkler system compliance is dependent on 
that system, they are connected with a supervised/monitored valve to warn if 
closed and they also usually have a flow or operation switch on them that 
indicates on a fire alarm panel.

Our suppliers also do the calculations. 

 

 

Nicky Marshall

Southern Regional Manager

PROTECH DESIGN LIMITED

Specialist Fire Protection Consultants

Phone: +64 (0)3 579 5577 extn 1  Mobile: +64 (0)21 433 488  Email:  
 ni...@protechdesign.co.nz  Web 
:www.protechdesign.co.nz 

Address:105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, NZ Skype for Business:  
 ni...@protechdesign.co.nz

A close up of a signDescription automatically generated

“I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I 
realised I was somebody” Lily Tomlin

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Bruce Verhei' 

Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

 

Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of the 
water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  We’ve seen 
these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for domestic because I 
don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the hood supplier will say 
it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they won’t do anything to prove 
it will work.  They throw that all back to the sprinkler guys.  Just been one 
of those days.

 

 

 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

  tm...@mfpdesign.com

www.mfpdesign.com 

 

 

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

 

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei 
Subject: Re: Captive Aire Systems

 

I might be a couple years out of date. I think the ones we saw were off 
domestic water, with a small backflow device. You can’t run a restaurant 
without water, so there is no concern about water system not being monitored.  

Best.


On Aug 14, 2019, at 15:19, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via 
Sprinklerforum  wrote:

I’m sure some of you have dealt with these Captive Aire / Piranha systems.  
Basically they are hood systems that connect to the sprinkler system.  The one 
I have a data sheet for has an operating pressure of 32-70 psi and flows vary 
depending on # of nozzles.  How do those of you dealing with these handle them? 
 The supplier will not do any calculations for the system.  My question is, do 
we treat these like a “rack” system and balance the hood systems to the 
overhead?  If I have a kitchen with 3 of these, do I figure 0, 1, 2 or 3 
flowing simultaneously with the overhead.  As you can imagine, a standard 
sprinkler in the kitchen is ±10 psi.  Now, if we have to treat this like a rack 
system and balance at the junction point, this 30 psi for the Piranha system 
will significantly over-discharge the sprinklers leading to a much larger 
kitchen demand.  These often seem to be brought up toward the end of the 
project leaving 

RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces,
so that should not be an issue.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Bob Knight, CET III

Fire by Knight, LLC

208-318-3057

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams
Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

 

I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic
that tapers from 2' to 4 ' without being filled to within 2 inches of the
deck with insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard
heads as the design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special
application attic sprinklers.

 

The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is
it prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the
gypsum mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.

 

TIA

 

David T Williams, PE - Lead MEP/FP Engineer

21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802

Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446

  LHBcorp.com

 

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
What is your attic slope? Is <2:12 then you need specially listed sprinklers 
for the areas <36” deep. 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:02 PM, David Williams via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks.. I didn’t see it  either but I wanted to see if there were other 
> opinions/options.
>  
> David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
>  
> LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:59 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Knight 
> Subject: RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>  
> NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces, so 
> that should not be an issue.
>  
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> Bob Knight, CET III
> Fire by Knight, LLC
> 208-318-3057
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: David Williams
> Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>  
> I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic that 
> tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the deck 
> with insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard heads as 
> the design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special 
> application attic sprinklers.
>  
> The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is 
> it prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the 
> gypsum mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.
>  
> TIA
>  
> David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
> Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
> LHBcorp.com
>  
> LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Nope I think 6/12 top surface 4/12 lower..

David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Travis Mack 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:40 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: b...@firebyknight.com; David Williams 
Subject: Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

What is your attic slope? Is <2:12 then you need specially listed sprinklers 
for the areas <36” deep.
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:02 PM, David Williams via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Thanks.. I didn’t see it  either but I wanted to see if there were other 
opinions/options.

David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:59 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>>
Subject: RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces, so 
that should not be an issue.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams
Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic that 
tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the deck with 
insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard heads as the 
design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special application 
attic sprinklers.

The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is it 
prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the gypsum 
mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.

TIA

David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
LHBcorp.com

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


Re: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
I’ve run into these on multiple projects. They go by the name Captive Aire, 
Core and Pirhana. 

They have a pressure demand of 32-70 psi and a flow rate of about 40 gpm 
depending on the number of nozzles. We see these in Marriott properties often. 

They can be off domestic or fire as I see it. They are supposed to be direct 
line as was described to me yesterday. So they can’t have sinks or other 
fixture coming off the line supplying them. Doesn’t make sense why it can 
attach to sprinkler then. But none of the suppliers will state if we have to 
flow this simultaneously with sprinklers. 

This job is always fun. Get to see lots of crazy things. 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Travis,
> 
> Like Bruce, I may be a few years out of date also but I've never seen one of 
> these connected to a sprinkler system. They are for a special hazard and so 
> independent of the life safety and building protection definition for a 
> sprinkler system. These are designed to smother the fire with the saponifying 
> agent and then use the water to cool down the appliances to avoid reflash. 
> Way back in the nineties, this system was a way that Ansul came up with to 
> meet the new requirements of UL 300. requirements that commercial cooking 
> operations had to comply with even in unsprinklered buildings (think 
> stand-alone McDonald's, Red Robins, etc, under 5000 or 6000 sqft that weren't 
> required to be sprinklered then). Note that NFPA 13 isn't even referenced as 
> an applicable code/standard.
> 
> CODES AND STANDARDS 
> The PIRANHA hybrid wet agent system and its components meet the following 
> codes, standards and recommended practices: 
> 
> 1. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 300 – Fire Testing of Fire 
> Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas. 
> 
> 2. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 2092 – Pre-Engineered Wet 
> Chemical Extinguishing Units. 
> 
> 3. Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC): Standard ORD-C1254.6 – 
> Pre-Engineered Wet Chemical Extinguishing System Units. 
> 
> 4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 17A – Wet Chemical 
> Extinguishing Systems. 
> 
> 5. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 96 – Ventilation 
> Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations. 
> 
> 6. American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE): Standard 1001 – Cross 
> Connection Protection Devices: Guidelines for Selection of the Proper Type of 
> Backflow Preventor – Piped Applied Atmospheric Vacuum Breakers. 
> 
> 7. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO): 
> Installation, Material and Property Standard PS 108-98 – Grease Fire 
> Suppression Systems.  
> 
> 
> Ron Greenman
> 
> rongreen...@gmail.com
> 
> 253.576.9700
> 
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner 
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:21 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> The purpose of a “hood” in this application is to direct and capture grease 
>> laden stuff…
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Re: NFPA 96.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> R/
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
>> 
>> Design Manager /3-D Specialist
>> 
>> Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
>> 
>> 1530 Samco Road
>> 
>> Rapid City, SD 57702
>> 
>> Office-605.348.2342
>> 
>> Direct Line-605.593.5063
>> 
>> Cell-605.391.2733
>> 
>> Fax:-605.348.0108
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:15 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Jonathan Mote 
>> Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Those hoods meet the definition of a draft curtain, added in 2013 edition, I 
>> would think they could be considered independently of the regular system.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jonathan Mote, WBSL NICET II
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Bruce 
>> Verhei' 
>> Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of the 
>> water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  We’ve 
>> seen these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for domestic 
>> because I don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the hood 
>> supplier will say it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they won’t 
>> do anything to prove it will work.  They throw that all back to the 
>> sprinkler guys.  Just been one of those days.
>> 
>>  

Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't need access to low points. You do,
and you need to put the sign on them or next to them, but you also need to
note where they are on the general info sign. Too many low points drain get
lost in the insulation. I think it was Bob that said inspections per 25
only had to be made from the floor (or that's what he meant ), but Scott
makes some good points about the difficulty that might be encountered for
other activities.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41 PM David Williams via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Nope I think 6/12 top surface 4/12 lower..
>
>
>
> *David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Travis Mack 
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:40 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* b...@firebyknight.com; David Williams 
> *Subject:* Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> What is your attic slope? Is <2:12 then you need specially listed
> sprinklers for the areas <36” deep.
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> www.mfpdesign,com
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:02 PM, David Williams via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks.. I didn’t see it  either but I wanted to see if there were other
> opinions/options.
>
>
>
> *David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:59 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Bob Knight 
> *Subject:* RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces,
> so that should not be an issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *David
> Williams via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* David Williams
> *Subject:* Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic
> that tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the
> deck with insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard
> heads as the design of the attic does not allow the effective use of
> special application attic sprinklers.
>
>
>
> The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided,
> is it prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on
> the gypsum mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.
>
>
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> *David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
>
> Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
>
> *LHBcorp.com* 
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread David Williams via Sprinklerforum
I think I got that, but as we are the dreaded engineers and not installers so 
good or bad we rely on the installers to get the signs right. I do like to make 
sure we are creating a document that reflects feasibility of construction and 
maintenance. In this case we will have good access to the low points as we can 
feed the limited access areas from the “full” attic. That would also let us 
inspect the sprinkler heads from the “side” from the full attic area without 
resorting to the markings on the gypboard!

Scott and I go way back to the days of Mountain Star so I take what he says to 
heart! (And the rest of you too! the experience of many sure beats even 40 
years of doing this alone)

David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't need access to low points. You do, and 
you need to put the sign on them or next to them, but you also need to note 
where they are on the general info sign. Too many low points drain get lost in 
the insulation. I think it was Bob that said inspections per 25 only had to be 
made from the floor (or that's what he meant ), but Scott makes some good 
points about the difficulty that might be encountered for other activities.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41 PM David Williams via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Nope I think 6/12 top surface 4/12 lower..

David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Travis Mack mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:40 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: b...@firebyknight.com; David Williams 
mailto:david.willi...@lhbcorp.com>>
Subject: Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

What is your attic slope? Is <2:12 then you need specially listed sprinklers 
for the areas <36” deep.
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:02 PM, David Williams via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Thanks.. I didn’t see it  either but I wanted to see if there were other 
opinions/options.

David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:59 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>>
Subject: RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces, so 
that should not be an issue.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams
Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic that 
tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the deck with 
insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard heads as the 
design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special application 
attic sprinklers.

The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is it 
prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the gypsum 
mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.

TIA

David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
LHBcorp.com

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread David Williams via Sprinklerforum
At least one of the Twin Cities local jurisdictions want to see these system or 
fire protection sprinklers installed in all kitchen hoods. The Fire Marshall 
want to have protection even when the agent has been expended (such as an agent 
only system). (they also want sprinklers to back up clean agent installations). 
I think we have always shown them connected to the domestic as per the 
installation manual.

David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Captive Aire Systems

Travis,

Like Bruce, I may be a few years out of date also but I've never seen one of 
these connected to a sprinkler system. They are for a special hazard and so 
independent of the life safety and building protection definition for a 
sprinkler system. These are designed to smother the fire with the saponifying 
agent and then use the water to cool down the appliances to avoid reflash. Way 
back in the nineties, this system was a way that Ansul came up with to meet the 
new requirements of UL 300. requirements that commercial cooking operations had 
to comply with even in unsprinklered buildings (think stand-alone McDonald's, 
Red Robins, etc, under 5000 or 6000 sqft that weren't required to be 
sprinklered then). Note that NFPA 13 isn't even referenced as an applicable 
code/standard.

CODES AND STANDARDS
The PIRANHA hybrid wet agent system and its components meet the following 
codes, standards and recommended practices:

1. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 300 – Fire Testing of Fire 
Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas.

2. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 2092 – Pre-Engineered Wet 
Chemical Extinguishing Units.

3. Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC): Standard ORD-C1254.6 – 
Pre-Engineered Wet Chemical Extinguishing System Units.

4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 17A – Wet Chemical 
Extinguishing Systems.

5. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 96 – Ventilation 
Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

6. American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE): Standard 1001 – Cross 
Connection Protection Devices: Guidelines for Selection of the Proper Type of 
Backflow Preventor – Piped Applied Atmospheric Vacuum Breakers.

7. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO): 
Installation, Material and Property Standard PS 108-98 – Grease Fire 
Suppression Systems.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:21 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
The purpose of a “hood” in this application is to direct and capture grease 
laden stuff…

Re: NFPA 96.

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108

[cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:15 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jonathan Mote 
mailto:jonat...@rowesprinkler.com>>
Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

Those hoods meet the definition of a draft curtain, added in 2013 edition, I 
would think they could be considered independently of the regular system.

Jonathan Mote, WBSL NICET II

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Bruce Verhei' 
mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>
Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of the 
water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  We’ve seen 
these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for domestic because I 
don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the hood supplier will say 
it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they won’t do anything to prove 
it will work.  They throw that all back to the sprinkler guys.  Just been one 
of those days.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107

Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
What Ron said. Some poor fitter out in Oct looking for low points and on a 
schedule

Best.

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:55, Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't need access to low points. You do, 
> and you need to put the sign on them or next to them, but you also need to 
> note where they are on the general info sign. Too many low points drain get 
> lost in the insulation. I think it was Bob that said inspections per 25 only 
> had to be made from the floor (or that's what he meant ), but Scott makes 
> some good points about the difficulty that might be encountered for other 
> activities.
> 
> 
> Ron Greenman
> 
> rongreen...@gmail.com
> 
> 253.576.9700
> 
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner 
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41 PM David Williams via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> Nope I think 6/12 top surface 4/12 lower..
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Travis Mack  
>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:40 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: b...@firebyknight.com; David Williams 
>> Subject: Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What is your attic slope? Is <2:12 then you need specially listed sprinklers 
>> for the areas <36” deep. 
>> 
>> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>> 
>> 480-505-9271
>> 
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> 
>> www.mfpdesign,com
>> 
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>> 
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:02 PM, David Williams via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks.. I didn’t see it  either but I wanted to see if there were other 
>> opinions/options.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:59 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Bob Knight 
>> Subject: RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces, 
>> so that should not be an issue.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Bob Knight, CET III
>> 
>> Fire by Knight, LLC
>> 
>> 208-318-3057
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>> On Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: David Williams
>> Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic 
>> that tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the 
>> deck with insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard 
>> heads as the design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special 
>> application attic sprinklers.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is 
>> it prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the 
>> gypsum mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> TIA
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
>> 
>> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
>> 
>> Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
>> 
>> LHBcorp.com
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread David Williams via Sprinklerforum
I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic that 
tapers from 2' to 4 ' without being filled to within 2 inches of the deck with 
insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard heads as the 
design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special application 
attic sprinklers.

The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is it 
prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the gypsum 
mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.

TIA

David T Williams, PE - Lead MEP/FP Engineer
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
LHBcorp.com

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Do note that NFPA 13 requires that the locations of low point drains be
identified on the "General Information Sign" as well as the drain itself.



Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:58 AM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces,
> so that should not be an issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *David
> Williams via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* David Williams
> *Subject:* Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic
> that tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the
> deck with insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard
> heads as the design of the attic does not allow the effective use of
> special application attic sprinklers.
>
>
>
> The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided,
> is it prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on
> the gypsum mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.
>
>
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> *David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
>
> Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
>
> *LHBcorp.com* 
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


RE: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
T,

You said “Piranha”.
These normally connect to potable and or have water tank in addition to the Wet 
Agent.

Your description sounded more like the Core which is continuous water supply 
for fire suppression AND wash down that have losses equated for connection to 
fire sprinkler?

Same?

R/
Matt





Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108

[cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:01 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams ; Ron Greenman 

Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

At least one of the Twin Cities local jurisdictions want to see these system or 
fire protection sprinklers installed in all kitchen hoods. The Fire Marshall 
want to have protection even when the agent has been expended (such as an agent 
only system). (they also want sprinklers to back up clean agent installations). 
I think we have always shown them connected to the domestic as per the 
installation manual.

David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:37 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Captive Aire Systems

Travis,

Like Bruce, I may be a few years out of date also but I've never seen one of 
these connected to a sprinkler system. They are for a special hazard and so 
independent of the life safety and building protection definition for a 
sprinkler system. These are designed to smother the fire with the saponifying 
agent and then use the water to cool down the appliances to avoid reflash. Way 
back in the nineties, this system was a way that Ansul came up with to meet the 
new requirements of UL 300. requirements that commercial cooking operations had 
to comply with even in unsprinklered buildings (think stand-alone McDonald's, 
Red Robins, etc, under 5000 or 6000 sqft that weren't required to be 
sprinklered then). Note that NFPA 13 isn't even referenced as an applicable 
code/standard.

CODES AND STANDARDS
The PIRANHA hybrid wet agent system and its components meet the following 
codes, standards and recommended practices:

1. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 300 – Fire Testing of Fire 
Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas.

2. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 2092 – Pre-Engineered Wet 
Chemical Extinguishing Units.

3. Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC): Standard ORD-C1254.6 – 
Pre-Engineered Wet Chemical Extinguishing System Units.

4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 17A – Wet Chemical 
Extinguishing Systems.

5. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 96 – Ventilation 
Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

6. American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE): Standard 1001 – Cross 
Connection Protection Devices: Guidelines for Selection of the Proper Type of 
Backflow Preventor – Piped Applied Atmospheric Vacuum Breakers.

7. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO): 
Installation, Material and Property Standard PS 108-98 – Grease Fire 
Suppression Systems.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:21 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
The purpose of a “hood” in this application is to direct and capture grease 
laden stuff…

Re: NFPA 96.

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108

[cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:15 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jonathan Mote 
mailto:jonat...@rowesprinkler.com>>
Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

Those hoods meet the definition of a draft curtain, added in 2013 edition, I 
would think they could be considered independently of the regular system.

Jonathan Mote, WBSL NICET II

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: 

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Travis,

In a roundabout way, that sort of answers your question. If they aren’t allowed 
to connect to domestic fixtures that may be operating at the same time, then it 
stands to reason that they shouldn’t connect to sprinkler systems that are 
operating at the same time. Ergo, if they are allowed to be connected to the 
sprinkler system, then it stands to reason that the sprinklers should not be 
operating simultaneously with this system.

Case closed. ☺

-Kyle M


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack ; Ron Greenman 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

I’ve run into these on multiple projects. They go by the name Captive Aire, 
Core and Pirhana.

They have a pressure demand of 32-70 psi and a flow rate of about 40 gpm 
depending on the number of nozzles. We see these in Marriott properties often.

They can be off domestic or fire as I see it. They are supposed to be direct 
line as was described to me yesterday. So they can’t have sinks or other 
fixture coming off the line supplying them. Doesn’t make sense why it can 
attach to sprinkler then. But none of the suppliers will state if we have to 
flow this simultaneously with sprinklers.

This job is always fun. Get to see lots of crazy things.
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Travis,

Like Bruce, I may be a few years out of date also but I've never seen one of 
these connected to a sprinkler system. They are for a special hazard and so 
independent of the life safety and building protection definition for a 
sprinkler system. These are designed to smother the fire with the saponifying 
agent and then use the water to cool down the appliances to avoid reflash. Way 
back in the nineties, this system was a way that Ansul came up with to meet the 
new requirements of UL 300. requirements that commercial cooking operations had 
to comply with even in unsprinklered buildings (think stand-alone McDonald's, 
Red Robins, etc, under 5000 or 6000 sqft that weren't required to be 
sprinklered then). Note that NFPA 13 isn't even referenced as an applicable 
code/standard.

CODES AND STANDARDS
The PIRANHA hybrid wet agent system and its components meet the following 
codes, standards and recommended practices:

1. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 300 – Fire Testing of Fire 
Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas.

2. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 2092 – Pre-Engineered Wet 
Chemical Extinguishing Units.

3. Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC): Standard ORD-C1254.6 – 
Pre-Engineered Wet Chemical Extinguishing System Units.

4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 17A – Wet Chemical 
Extinguishing Systems.

5. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 96 – Ventilation 
Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

6. American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE): Standard 1001 – Cross 
Connection Protection Devices: Guidelines for Selection of the Proper Type of 
Backflow Preventor – Piped Applied Atmospheric Vacuum Breakers.

7. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO): 
Installation, Material and Property Standard PS 108-98 – Grease Fire 
Suppression Systems.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:21 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
The purpose of a “hood” in this application is to direct and capture grease 
laden stuff…

Re: NFPA 96.

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection 
Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108



From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:15 

Allied XL pipe - tech data

2019-08-15 Thread Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
If anyone has an XL data sheet (I only need dimensions at this moment, not the 
friction loss tables) that is already or can be scanned, please send to me 
off-forum and I will be eternally grateful (or until next Friday).

Thanks,
[cid:image003.jpg@01D5536F.9D581B50]


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


Re: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Travis,

Like Bruce, I may be a few years out of date also but I've never seen one
of these connected to a sprinkler system. They are for a special hazard and
so independent of the life safety and building protection definition for a
sprinkler system. These are designed to smother the fire with the
saponifying agent and then use the water to cool down the appliances to
avoid reflash. Way back in the nineties, this system was a way that Ansul
came up with to meet the new requirements of UL 300. requirements that
commercial cooking operations had to comply with even in unsprinklered
buildings (think stand-alone McDonald's, Red Robins, etc, under 5000 or
6000 sqft that weren't required to be sprinklered then). Note that NFPA 13
isn't even referenced as an applicable code/standard.

CODES AND STANDARDS
The PIRANHA hybrid wet agent system and its components meet the following
codes, standards and recommended practices:

1. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 300 – Fire Testing of
Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas.

2. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 2092 – Pre-Engineered Wet
Chemical Extinguishing Units.

3. Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC): Standard ORD-C1254.6 –
Pre-Engineered Wet Chemical Extinguishing System Units.

4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 17A – Wet Chemical
Extinguishing Systems.

5. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 96 – Ventilation
Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

6. American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE): Standard 1001 – Cross
Connection Protection Devices: Guidelines for Selection of the Proper Type
of Backflow Preventor – Piped Applied Atmospheric Vacuum Breakers.

7. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO):
Installation, Material and Property Standard PS 108-98 – Grease Fire
Suppression Systems.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:21 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> The purpose of a “hood” in this application is to direct and capture
> grease laden stuff…
>
>
>
> Re: NFPA 96.
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis, **CWBSP*
>
> *Design Manager /**3-D** Specialist*
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection Inc. *
>
> *1530 Samco Road*
>
> *Rapid City, SD 57702*
>
> *Office-605.348.2342*
>
> *Direct Line-605.593.5063*
>
> *Cell-605.391.2733*
>
> *Fax:-605.348.0108*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:15 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Jonathan Mote 
> *Subject:* RE: Captive Aire Systems
>
>
>
> Those hoods meet the definition of a draft curtain, added in 2013 edition,
> I would think they could be considered independently of the regular system.
>
>
>
> *Jonathan Mote,* WBSL NICET II
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Bruce
> Verhei' 
> *Subject:* RE: Captive Aire Systems
>
>
>
> *Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of
> the water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.
> We’ve seen these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for
> domestic because I don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the
> hood supplier will say it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they
> won’t do anything to prove it will work.  They throw that all back to the
> sprinkler guys.  Just been one of those days.*
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F] 
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> 
>
>
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
> low price is forgotten.”*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* 

RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

2019-08-15 Thread David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Thanks.. I didn't see it  either but I wanted to see if there were other 
opinions/options.

David T Williams - Lead MEP/FP Engineer

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight 
Subject: RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces, so 
that should not be an issue.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams
Subject: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic that 
tapers from 2' to 4 ' without being filled to within 2 inches of the deck with 
insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard heads as the 
design of the attic does not allow the effective use of special application 
attic sprinklers.

The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided, is it 
prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on the gypsum 
mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.

TIA

David T Williams, PE - Lead MEP/FP Engineer
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
LHBcorp.com

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

2019-08-15 Thread Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
I was told that they can’t have the connections to toilets or sinks upstream 
because it could take water away from the system when needed.  But, in this 
case they finally came back and just took it from the domestic.  So I won’t 
worry about it until the next one comes up.

 

  

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

  tm...@mfpdesign.com

www.mfpdesign.com

 

Send large files to us via:  

 https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

LinkedIn:  

 https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

 

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

 

 

From: Kyle.Montgomery  
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack ; Ron Greenman 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

 

Travis,

 

In a roundabout way, that sort of answers your question. If they aren’t allowed 
to connect to domestic fixtures that may be operating at the same time, then it 
stands to reason that they shouldn’t connect to sprinkler systems that are 
operating at the same time. Ergo, if they are allowed to be connected to the 
sprinkler system, then it stands to reason that the sprinklers should not be 
operating simultaneously with this system.

 

Case closed. :)

 

-Kyle M

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Cc: Travis Mack mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> >; Ron 
Greenman mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

 

I’ve run into these on multiple projects. They go by the name Captive Aire, 
Core and Pirhana. 

 

They have a pressure demand of 32-70 psi and a flow rate of about 40 gpm 
depending on the number of nozzles. We see these in Marriott properties often. 

 

They can be off domestic or fire as I see it. They are supposed to be direct 
line as was described to me yesterday. So they can’t have sinks or other 
fixture coming off the line supplying them. Doesn’t make sense why it can 
attach to sprinkler then. But none of the suppliers will state if we have to 
flow this simultaneously with sprinklers. 

 

This job is always fun. Get to see lots of crazy things. 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

480-505-9271

MFP Design, LLC

www.mfpdesign,com  

Send large files to MFP Design via:

https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 15, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > wrote:

Travis,

 

Like Bruce, I may be a few years out of date also but I've never seen one of 
these connected to a sprinkler system. They are for a special hazard and so 
independent of the life safety and building protection definition for a 
sprinkler system. These are designed to smother the fire with the saponifying 
agent and then use the water to cool down the appliances to avoid reflash. Way 
back in the nineties, this system was a way that Ansul came up with to meet the 
new requirements of UL 300. requirements that commercial cooking operations had 
to comply with even in unsprinklered buildings (think stand-alone McDonald's, 
Red Robins, etc, under 5000 or 6000 sqft that weren't required to be 
sprinklered then). Note that NFPA 13 isn't even referenced as an applicable 
code/standard.

 

CODES AND STANDARDS 

The PIRANHA hybrid wet agent system and its components meet the following 
codes, standards and recommended practices: 

 

1. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 300 – Fire Testing of Fire 
Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas. 

 

2. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 2092 – Pre-Engineered Wet 
Chemical Extinguishing Units. 

 

3. Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC): Standard ORD-C1254.6 – 
Pre-Engineered Wet Chemical Extinguishing System Units. 

 

4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 17A 

Got it

2019-08-15 Thread Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Thanks to those who have already sent tech data.

[cid:image003.jpg@01D55372.D62BA7A0]


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org